Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,792
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror
Breitbart ^ | 17 Oct 2012, 3:44 AM PDT | Tony Lee
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror'

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama's chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" on the day after.

"First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape," Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.

This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday's debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue -- and took Obama's side.

During the debate, Crowley affirmed Obama's assertion that he referred to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror on the day after.

After Romney correctly said it took Obama 14 days before Obama said the the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror, Crowley took Obama's side -- to an ovation from the town hall audience -- and she proclaimed Obama had indeed claimed the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the attacks in the White House Rose Garden.

On September 12, the day after the attacks, Obama did say the words "acts of terror" but he was not referring to the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

Crowley knew that on September 30 and she conceded it again hours after the debate when she went on CNN and said while Romney "was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word." But the damage had already been done.

With Obama's reelection on the line, Crowley seemed to have conveniently forgotten the facts she knew two weeks before when she grilled Axelrod in a way she should have Obama.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
Susan Rice said on the 16th that this wasn't a pre-planned attack. LIES

On the 18th Obama went on the letterman show and blamed our first amendment for the attack. LIES!!!

If the terrorized was supposed to mean a terrorist attack. Well, Obama sure inserted his foot in his ass.

Clinton on the 21st was the first to say it was a Terrorist attack. SPIN!

Obama on the view on the 25th said it was about the fucking video! Spin some more!!!
 
Last edited:
So Obama must have been talking about another attack. All I want to know is why Republicans let Bin Laden go? If they weren't on the same side, why let him go? Doesn't make sense.
 
So Obama must have been talking about another attack. All I want to know is why Republicans let Bin Laden go? If they weren't on the same side, why let him go? Doesn't make sense.
You kiddin'???????

That's what they do..........

pinkhawks.jpg


*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtPBTybQ9k]The Hunt For Bin Laden - YouTube[/ame]​
 
No reason to keep beating a dead horse, Romney will have the opportunity to set the record streight next week, everyone here has already made up their minds.
 
So Obama must have been talking about another attack. All I want to know is why Republicans let Bin Laden go? If they weren't on the same side, why let him go? Doesn't make sense.
You kiddin'???????

That's what they do..........

pinkhawks.jpg


*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtPBTybQ9k]The Hunt For Bin Laden - YouTube[/ame]​

Why did Clinton give him a pass twice when he was POTUS, shit happens. RIGHT?
 
Read all about it...Obama spins and lies!!!!


Time line of lies!

Obama's Benghazi Lies - Home

Destroys Obama's case. It wasn't about a fucking terrorist attack, BUT the protest over our freedom of speech.

On the 13th he was talking about the protest when he said terrorized.

Susan Rice said on the 16th that this wasn't a pre-planned attack. LIES

On the 18th Obama went on the letterman show and blamed our first amendment for the attack. LIES!!!

If the terrorized was supposed to mean a terrorist attack. Well, Obama sure inserted his foot in his ass.

Clinton on the 21st was the first to say it was a Terrorist attack. SPIN!

Obama on the view on the 25th said it was about the fucking video! Spin some more!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD4a9GHBF_U&feature=related]Carney maintains Libya attack was not preplanned - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPzjayOh-PU&feature=relmfu]Who is responsible for the attack in Benghazi? - YouTube[/ame]




Biden blatantly lied about Chris Stevens wanting more Security
The Fact Checker


“We weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security.”

— Biden, speaking of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya

Biden’s bold statement was directly contradicted by State Department officials just this week, in testimony before a congressional panel and in unclassified cables released by a congressional committee.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” said Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya earlier this year. A Utah national guardsman who led a security team, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, said: “We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.”
 
It is always something to witness,

the rightwing propaganda machine trying to manufacture a lie to replace the truth.

If it weren't so routine at this point it might be more interesting.
 
It is always something to witness,

the rightwing propaganda machine trying to manufacture a lie to replace the truth.

If it weren't so routine at this point it might be more interesting.

Amazing how tone death you people are. Jesus christ...Now I understand how Stalin, Kim jong ill, ect stayed in power. Look at the video's and read my links.
 
It is always something to witness,

the rightwing propaganda machine trying to manufacture a lie to replace the truth.

If it weren't so routine at this point it might be more interesting.

can you refute obamas comments on 5 separate occasions, incl. the UN, or you can revel in the pasture eating that grass, becasue , till then, you're just to much of a sheep to swallow the truth.
 
It is always something to witness,

the rightwing propaganda machine trying to manufacture a lie to replace the truth.

If it weren't so routine at this point it might be more interesting.

can you refute obamas comments on 5 separate occasions, incl. the UN, or you can revel in the pasture eating that grass, becasue , till then, you're just to much of a sheep to swallow the truth.

I've read the transcript of what the president said on the 12th. He clearly referred to an act of terror. Case closed.
 
It is always something to witness,

the rightwing propaganda machine trying to manufacture a lie to replace the truth.

If it weren't so routine at this point it might be more interesting.

can you refute obamas comments on 5 separate occasions, incl. the UN, or you can revel in the pasture eating that grass, becasue , till then, you're just to much of a sheep to swallow the truth.

The truth isn't what he swallows...
 
It is always something to witness,

the rightwing propaganda machine trying to manufacture a lie to replace the truth.

If it weren't so routine at this point it might be more interesting.

^^^^^^Our own USMB version of Baghdad Bob^^^^^^^

Obama admit it was terror attack right away!! He no lie!!!! He admit!! Nothing to see here!! You go away!! No more question from you!!!!!

baghdad-bob.jpg
 
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror
Breitbart ^ | 17 Oct 2012, 3:44 AM PDT | Tony Lee
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror'

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama's chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" on the day after.

"First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape," Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.

This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday's debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue -- and took Obama's side.

During the debate, Crowley affirmed Obama's assertion that he referred to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror on the day after.

After Romney correctly said it took Obama 14 days before Obama said the the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror, Crowley took Obama's side -- to an ovation from the town hall audience -- and she proclaimed Obama had indeed claimed the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the attacks in the White House Rose Garden.

On September 12, the day after the attacks, Obama did say the words "acts of terror" but he was not referring to the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

Crowley knew that on September 30 and she conceded it again hours after the debate when she went on CNN and said while Romney "was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word." But the damage had already been done.

With Obama's reelection on the line, Crowley seemed to have conveniently forgotten the facts she knew two weeks before when she grilled Axelrod in a way she should have Obama.

it is good that she corrected the record but the damage was already done. I bet 90% of the independants/undecideds watching that debate will never hear this correction. Those of us who care enough to be posting here will though ;).
 
1) @ 4:20 Obama said they listened closely to what the ambassador was telling him but yet the admin never increased security like the ambassador requested

2) @ 5:00-6:20 you can hear the context in which he mentioned terrorism, Romney was correct in his assertation as, in context, Obama was referring to terrorism in general and not specifically the attack

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIxjz5wEcF0]September 12, 2012 - President Obama Speaks on Libya Attacks that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens - YouTube[/ame]
 
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror
Breitbart ^ | 17 Oct 2012, 3:44 AM PDT | Tony Lee
Crowley to Axelrod: Obama Never Said Benghazi Attack Was 'Act of Terror'

On CNN's "State of the Union" on September 30, Candy Crowley insisted David Axelrod, President Barack Obama's chief strategist, was wrong when Axelrod tried to claim President Barack Obama called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" on the day after.

"First, they said it was not planned, it was part of this tape," Crowley said when Axelrod tried to spin her.

This was Crowley the journalist, unlike the pro-Obama advocate who moderated Tuesday's debate between Obama and Mitt Romney and interjected herself into an argument between Obama and Romney on the exact same issue -- and took Obama's side.

During the debate, Crowley affirmed Obama's assertion that he referred to the Benghazi attacks as acts of terror on the day after.

After Romney correctly said it took Obama 14 days before Obama said the the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror, Crowley took Obama's side -- to an ovation from the town hall audience -- and she proclaimed Obama had indeed claimed the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the attacks in the White House Rose Garden.

On September 12, the day after the attacks, Obama did say the words "acts of terror" but he was not referring to the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

Crowley knew that on September 30 and she conceded it again hours after the debate when she went on CNN and said while Romney "was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word." But the damage had already been done.

With Obama's reelection on the line, Crowley seemed to have conveniently forgotten the facts she knew two weeks before when she grilled Axelrod in a way she should have Obama.

it is good that she corrected the record but the damage was already done. I bet 90% of the independants/undecideds watching that debate will never hear this correction. Those of us who care enough to be posting here will though ;).

The next debate should open with her apologizing for over-stepping her duties as moderator and abdicating her responsibility to remain neutral and then she should set the record straight in the same format in which she willingly misled the public to begin with.
 
The intellectual dishonesty on the part of liberals on this one is outrageous. Sorry, don't know how else to describe it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top